Yep there it is TBG someone has already reported the thing.

I hope someone will check on deep out there in Hollywood.

He went all to pieces when Ada made her debut a while back.

When it was discovered that Ada was a fraud deep became lethargic waxing ill both mentally and physically.

I wish you had been out there in person to break this to him rather than here on the forum. I think you could have held him close and succored him at least in case this thing proves to just be some monkey’s uncle. I’m just saying.

Originally Posted by T.B.G.:

****

The actual package of articles in Science is here:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/extra/sediba/

 

Now we can probably look forward to the further examination of this find and the likely repudiation of much of what has been initially theorized.  That is the prevailing pattern over the last 50 years or more of  paleontological research into hominid origins.

From the link by contendah:

 

Paleoanthropologist Now Rides High on a New Fossil Tide

Summary

This week, Science publishes five papers by Lee Berger of the University of the Witwatersrand and his colleagues, featuring details and analysis of the 2-million-year-old remains of Australopithecus sediba (see pp. 1370 and 1402). Berger hopes the fossils will confirm his controversial views about the role of southern Africa in hominin evolution and the place of Au. sediba as a link to our own genus, Homo. But he will have to work hard to convince the field that his team's interpretations are correct. His career has been dogged by controversy, and some of his peers find Berger, whose background includes a stint in TV news, heavy on style and light on substance. They say he has made exaggerated claims and serious errors. Yet even critics acknowledge that Berger's strength is his passion for paleoanthropology.

 

We will have to wait and see.

quote:    Originally Posted by Deep Not Shallow Not Slim:

Pretty cool, eh, TBG?  Makes fools of the Creationists, doesn't it?   DF


Hi Deep,

 

It was foolish, misleading statements such as this which led me to start the new discussion "When You Wish Upon A Star. . .?"  For, that is exactly what atheists and secularists are doing with their desire to find the "Missing Link" -- wishing upon a star! 


God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

I still contend if Evolution is the actual process by which all life became then the whole gambit should be continuing to play out over and over including if a species goes extinct then it should be replicated through the exact same process as which it originally came into existence as the original primary elements are still there and haven't gone extinct and there is still an environment that supports life and growth so at various parts of our Earth there should be a live and existing specimen of this thing that they unearthed and found and are trying to figure some way to make it fit in. 

 

Here is yet another view or article that promotes this "missing link" from Scientific American

 

http://www.scientificamerican....about-human-ancestry

 

 

 

Since the same thing has been batted around over and over I'll just submit the link to yet another article about the same thing and let it rest at that as nothing I have read still convinces me that Evolution is the vehicle by which all life became and is explained by.  If you though want to believe in Evolution then that's fine with me as I remain confident in continued rejection of a theory which has so many holes and flaws in it.  Evolution however is the best and only way by which people who are intent upon removing God from any equation can come up with. 

 

Evolution starts with rejection of God therefore restricts life's creation or establishment to have to conform to some physical means even though any definition of how that original life species, the origin, came into existence from nothing.  Think about this accidental undirected or non-intelligent process which just happens to figure out or develop a reproductive process which doesn't happen in and of itself without the assistance of a different yet required opposite mate.  Male and Female of the specific species rather than just an organism splitting or dividing and creating another copy of itself.  Somehow by accident life figured out (sorry that would denote some potential intelligence) that it had to construct a female capable of the production of an egg in order for the male by virtue of a sperm to created a new life, of the same species mind you.   Life in that it somehow knows that it has to reproduce with it's own type species in order for life to expand and carry on.

 

When you come down to it life or non-life entities came into existence from nothing by some undefined accidental, non-intelligent and undirected process that man can neither understand or duplicate.  Faith in everything from nothing that eventually develops into something extremely sophisticated and somehow everything is held together on it's own yet nothing is duplicated and all this great unintelligent process of evolution somehow knows that it's evolved and therefore all extinct species and transitional beings need not replicate themselves from their previous state or form. 

 

Still amazing how so many are made to be so uncomfortable and are threatened by others who happen to believe in God or that God (a Deity) created Life and all that is around us. 

 

I take a break from things, a very wonderful rest, and yet come back and see exactly the same ole thing.  Bickering, and Bill starting new threads or spinoffs from the original topic.  Oh well felt I needed to at least pop in from time to time to let everyone know I wasn't banned or entered under some new fabricated name.  

Originally Posted by gbrk:

I still contend if Evolution is the actual process by which all life became then the whole gambit should be continuing to play out over and over including if a species goes extinct then it should be replicated through the exact same process as which it originally came into existence as the original primary elements are still there and haven't gone extinct and there is still an environment that supports life and growth so at various parts of our Earth there should be a live and existing specimen of this thing that they unearthed and found and are trying to figure some way to make it fit in. 

 

 

It does seem funny, that when this question is posed,  all of the "logical, superior, free thinking, enlightened ones" simply have a "logic shutdown", and the spin begins. 

Most often with the usual "look in the mirror" rubbish.  

Originally Posted by Not Shallow Not Slim:

Pretty cool, eh, TBG?  Makes fools of the Creationists, doesn't it?

 

DF

-------------------------------------

you OK  out there deep? Just stay warm and drink liquids. keep your feet elevated if you feel fainty.

Originally Posted by gbrk:

"Evolution starts with rejection of God"

---

 

Stupidity.  I was once a Christian beleiver and a staunch supporter of science.  There are millions of Christians who have no closed heir mind to science.

Evolution certainly does close the book on the fairy tale of Geneiss but does NOT require that you give up your faith in Sky People.

Originally Posted by Unobtanium:
Originally Posted by gbrk:

"Evolution starts with rejection of God"

---

 

Stupidity.  I was once a Christian beleiver and a staunch supporter of science.  There are millions of Christians who have no closed heir mind to science.

Evolution certainly does close the book on the fairy tale of Geneiss but does NOT require that you give up your faith in Sky People.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There is no separation of God and science.

Evolution doesn't close the book on anything.

Heaven and Hell isn't a fairy tale, and you're not required to believe in Hell.

.

What is more difficult to accept?  That humankind was uniquely created with a physical body yet an inner soul/spirit setting them apart from all other species and creation with unique gifted abilities bestowed by a/the creator to enable free thought and decision making and higher thought processes or that by some accident we derived from a specific monkey with no intelligent process there but just out of a desire to walk upright and desire other things overtime those desires somehow effected development within the reproduction process whereby he shed his hair and ape features and learned to walk on two legs upright yet left behind the primitive apes which somehow didn't get the generic message to advance their species.  

 

All along the process of species advancement stopped with the origin and the advanced species jumping from point A to point Z yet through this same non-intelligent process either forgot the other incremental steps confining apes to remaining apes and those that advanced to man never to return again and losing any ability to communicate via language.  Also the same incremental processes in all other species and cross species just stopped or somehow knew it had made the transition so no more incremental changes were needed again leaving the base species or origins to their primitive  and original states and the advanced species to their current point in evolution.

 

At least one thing doesn't evolve or advance and that is the retort toward those who happen believe in a Intelligent Creator and that humankind is a special creation.  The responses are still the same as they have always been.

quote:   Originally Posted by INVICTUS:
There is no separation of God and science.   Evolution doesn't close the book on anything. Heaven and Hell isn't a fairy tale, and you're not required to believe in Hell. 

Hi Vic,

 

True, we cannot separate God and science -- since God created all the sciences and all the laws governing those sciences.  Science is a subset of the Creation.

 

When you declare, "Evolution doesn't close the book on anything" -- that is true, IF you are speaking of Micro Evolution, i.e., adaptation.  If you are speaking of Darwinian Evolution; then, I would have to disagree.

 

You tell us, "Heaven and Hell isn't a fairy tale, and you're not required to believe in Hell."

 

True, heaven and hell are not fairy tales; they are real places -- and the only two eternal destinations for all people.   And, I will agree with you that believing in a literal hell is not a requirement of salvation -- since, we are saved by grace, through faith -- plus nothing else. 

 

However, telling folks that hell does not exist, or that they do not have to believe in a literal hell -- is the same as not telling the blind man that the cliff in front of him is not really a cliff.   

 

Believing in a literal hell does not give one salvation -- but, knowing the danger it presents may help some avoid hell.  And, that is why we must never fail to tell people that hell is a real place.  And, that by denying God and his "paid in full" free gift of salvation -- that person IS choosing hell as their eternal destination. 

 

To show true Christian love, we must tell folks of the pitfalls in their path -- and, the most urgent pitfall which we must tell them about -- is hell.   We do not show Christian love for folks by misleading them into believing there is no danger of hell.

 

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

 

Bill

Originally Posted by gbrk:

What is more difficult to accept? ....

 

That Santa Claus brought the presents made in a toy shop at the North Pole by elves, or that your parents bought them at a store, and put them under the tree?

 

At least one thing doesn't evolve or advance and that is the retort toward those who happen believe in a Intelligent Creator and that humankind is a special creation.  The responses are still the same as they have always been.

At least you got that right.

 

Honestly, gbrk, you are the one person here I don't get.  Come away from those nutcases at the AiG before it is too late.

Bill, you might try this line of logic on, since it fits better than the spiraling lunacy that you have fallen into.  God is the creator.  As the creator he also creates science.  Since it is easily seen that the universe is billions of years old, then God must have "created" it billions of years ago, along with evolution.  Unfortunately, that means the story of creation in Genesis, along with things like the Garden of Eden, and Original Sin, are allegories.  

 

Which is more difficult to believe?  Life from a primordial soup, or life from dirt?  Sounds like the same thing to me.  Really, Bill, I'm pretty sure you can pick up some Thomas Aquinas, and good commentary at Amazon.com.  Join us here on the rational side of Christianity.

Originally Posted by gbrk:

What is more difficult to accept?  

 

----

 

Science will ALWAYS be more difficult to accept than belief that an invisible superman snapped his fingers.  Science requires study. It requires effort to understand.  It requires that one build a foundation of knowledge layer upon layer over long years of effort that finally, at long last, affords the seeker a much deeper understanding of our place in the cosmos.

So, of course I can't blame you for simply believing "god did it" instead of picking up a science book.  You are not ready to learn.  You never will be.  

Your level of understanding of biology, chemistry and astronomy seem to be at about the 4th grade level. You must understand these sciences before you attempt to fully grasp evolutionary theory.  The fact that you keep bringing up the same stupid points that have already been explained to you indicates that you are simply a lost cause.

So I'm left with ridicule.  You are simply an idiot.  Sorry. 

This would be an excellent question for Aude, but alas we no longer have him. Science magazine publishes articles from multiple disciplines. I was curious about peer review, and it does employ such review, but has had problems in the recent past with some shoddy work.

 

Now we see not one but five articles published simultaneously. I'm curious why they were all published in Science and not at least partially in a more specialized journal. I'm aware Science has more readers, but I would hope these anthropologists are not media ******.

 

Any ideas?

Originally Posted by CrustyMac:
Originally Posted by gbrk:

What is more difficult to accept? ....

 

That Santa Claus brought the presents made in a toy shop at the North Pole by elves, or that your parents bought them at a store, and put them under the tree?

 

At least one thing doesn't evolve or advance and that is the retort toward those who happen believe in a Intelligent Creator and that humankind is a special creation.  The responses are still the same as they have always been.

At least you got that right.

 

Honestly, gbrk, you are the one person here I don't get.  Come away from those nutcases at the AiG before it is too late.


----------------------------------

crust you ar laboring under the misconception everyone is a dullard as your friends the atheist.

GBRK is not an idiot which is the pre-requisite for your mutterings to gain audience.

 

Don't give him advice. You are grossly un-qualified.

 

It is obvious that this research of mine on human behavior has shown that in fact “evil companionship [does ]corrupt good morals”. This forum has demonstrated that the curious innocents are quickly drawn to these evil atheist on the forum. As with Noe every thought and intent is that of eville. Otherwise productive citizens are daily employed in destruction of morals and vilification of others as a sport. When evil is a choice it is quickly glorified with propaganda by these atheist and their “christian confederates”. God then is seen as a defilement of their effort to destroy mankind. My warning then is to not take this less than human species of vipers into your bosom. Beware the Crusts’ who have not the balls to stand up for God and the joys who give quarter to Gods enemies and feed them at her table giving succor to them along with her evil troll b50m, Bestworking, Darkangel, deepFat and the devil himself unobtanium.

Originally Posted by FirenzeVeritas:

This would be an excellent question for Aude, but alas we no longer have him. Science magazine publishes articles from multiple disciplines. I was curious about peer review, and it does employ such review, but has had problems in the recent past with some shoddy work.

 

Now we see not one but five articles published simultaneously. I'm curious why they were all published in Science and not at least partially in a more specialized journal. I'm aware Science has more readers, but I would hope these anthropologists are not media ******.

 

Any ideas?

----------------------------------------

Excellent observation fire. I see you have been reading. Too bad your reckoning will likely fall on the same deaf ears as mine own admonitions to go to a credible source before making a fool of oneself .

I'm new here, so this may have been brought up in some previous discussion, but I would like to point out that the Theory of Evolution does not say man evolved from apes. It states there was a common ancestor between man, as we know him today, and all other primate species.
I have no idea how things began, and really don't think it matters. I can only say that if there were some Big Daddy in the Sky he isn't anything I would want to emulate. He would be one hateful, malicious SOB to have created life with the Food Chain mentality of eat and be eaten.
Originally Posted by SeniorCoffee:
I'm new here, so this may have been brought up in some previous discussion, but I would like to point out that the Theory of Evolution does not say man evolved from apes. It states there was a common ancestor between man, as we know him today, and all other primate species.
I have no idea how things began, and really don't think it matters. I can only say that if there were some Big Daddy in the Sky he isn't anything I would want to emulate. He would be one hateful, malicious SOB to have created life with the Food Chain mentality of eat and be eaten.

 

 

Whether you believe the Bible or not, it states that God created all animals to be herbivorous (vegetarian). 29And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

Originally Posted by ReleaseTheElephant:
Originally Posted by gbrk:

I still contend if Evolution is the actual process by which all life became then the whole gambit should be continuing to play out over and over including if a species goes extinct then it should be replicated through the exact same process as which it originally came into existence as the original primary elements are still there and haven't gone extinct and there is still an environment that supports life and growth so at various parts of our Earth there should be a live and existing specimen of this thing that they unearthed and found and are trying to figure some way to make it fit in. 

 

 

It does seem funny, that when this question is posed,  all of the "logical, superior, free thinking, enlightened ones" simply have a "logic shutdown", and the spin begins. 

Most often with the usual "look in the mirror" rubbish.  

___________________________________________________

 

What question? GK didn't ask a question. That is one long nonsensical statement. First, Evolution does not try and answer the question of how all life began. For information on that check out Abiogenesis. Second, the scenario GK is presenting is not even close to how Evolution occurs. Third, Earth's environment is drastically different today than it was 4.5 billion years ago.

 

Its no wonder some of you can't grasp the Theory of Evolution. You don't even understand the basic principles of it.

 

This might help.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/

 

Originally Posted by DarkAngel:

What question? GK didn't ask a question. That is one long nonsensical statement. First, Evolution does not try and answer the question of how all life began. For information on that check out Abiogenesis. Second, the scenario GK is presenting is not even close to how Evolution occurs. Third, Earth's environment is drastically different today than it was 4.5 billion years ago.

 

Its no wonder some of you can't grasp the Theory of Evolution. You don't even understand the basic principles of it.

 

This might help.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/humankind/

 ------

 

Amen. Excellent links, Dark dude.  One correction, though: GBRK didn't write "one long nonsensical statement" he wrote one long nonsensical SENTENCE!  I swear, that guy can make the longest snetances ever.

 

But a small part of the sentence reads. " . . . . if a species goes extinct then it should be replicated through the exact same process as which it originally came into existence as the original primary elements are still there and haven't gone extinct . . . . ."

This is simply ignorant.  Stupidly so.  I've explained this concept many times to him using very small words in hopes of getting the dim bulb to light up to no avail.

Once again, we have a twist on the ignorant, "If we came from monkey then how come thars still monkeys, huh Smartboy?"

GB, evolution is (in part) a process of RANDOM mutations.  Mutations are caused by a variety of things. Cosmic rays, chemicals in the diet, lifestyle and so forth.  One mutation in a gene can result in only 3 results: Good, neutral, or bad. Most mutations are bad ie: a baby is born with a birth defect and does not live to reproduce so that baby's genes are not passed on to the next generation ending the mutation at the 1st generation.

Some mutations are neutral.  They may result in a different eye color or rumply toenails or curly hair or dimples. Some of these harmless mutations can propagate through a species because of sexual selection.  I like chicks with dimples, for example. 

Every now and then, a mutation results in a positive trait that helps that organism survive.  Traits such as intelligence, faster runners, bigger muscles, beauty.  When it does, those mutations are passed on to the next generation and on an on and on.

 

So can you see how even if conditions are exactly the same, an extinct organism will not evolve again because of the random nature or mutations?



 

 



 

Well organized foolishness darkunoi. Fabricated evidence imagined to be real. Non of it is tested and never will be. All one would have to do to find odd and different human skulls of thousands of brain sizes is to dig up a cemetery. There are plenty folks who are living today with a head like those you are using for proof. For instance, unoi my head and brain size is much larger than yours. Adot’s is even smaller so if they dig us up a thousand years we will be dated millions of years apart by this silly logic.

 

 

Whether you believe the Bible or not, it states that God created all animals to be herbivorous (vegetarian). 29And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.




So since the average carnivore proves that to be hogwash, why would you quote it as an example. The only thing it shows is how out of touch with reality the bable really is. Did all the herbivores evolve into carnivores since it was written?
Originally Posted by SeniorCoffee:

 

 

Whether you believe the Bible or not, it states that God created all animals to be herbivorous (vegetarian). 29And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. 30And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.




So since the average carnivore proves that to be hogwash, why would you quote it as an example. The only thing it shows is how out of touch with reality the bable really is. Did all the herbivores evolve into carnivores since it was written?

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

sanka, You miss the whole point of the point God was making.

You know Caine was the first human to eat meat after he was

ran out of town, don't you?

.

I'm not a biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination even though I've read seveal versions.
And really haven't spent much time with the old testement, so please educate me and direct me to the chapter and verse that makes the claim that Cain was the first to eat meat.

Add Reply

Likes (0)
Post

×
×
×
×